Melissa Whiting's Court Date - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Melissa Whiting's Court Date

Date: Jul 5, 2005

All federal claims were dismissed and the case was remanded back to state court. Looks like the parties appealed that order to the 5th Circuit...

Date: Jul 5, 2005

And, that's not what NO. 04-60956 decided at all.

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Docket Insider wrote:

All federal claims were dismissed and the case was remanded back to state court. Looks like the parties appealed that order to the 5th Circuit...

Your yawn was pretty inappropriate considering what this case is costing the state taxpayers. If you truly think SFT and DT didn't do MW any harm, you too are a cowardly lion. You'll get what you deserve, and they certainly will get their just desserts. Taxpayers: Happy that even more money is being spent because of a little thing called NEPOTISM

Date: Jul 5, 2005

could someone please clarify what is going on with this case? the preceding posts are ambiguous.

Date: Jul 5, 2005

thank you, Melissa, for standing up for yourself -and for the greatest interests of those "born" or "paid our way into" THe Shabby Chic Hattiesburg Society Lesson. Know you're coming down here in a couple of weeks -- can we all get together at the Thirsty Hippo or some other venue as an action of friendship and NO QUARTER

NO.04-60956

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Melissa Whiting

Plaintiff/Appellant

v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI, Dr. SHelby Thames officially and individually, Dr. Dana Thames, officially and individually. Dr. Carl Martray officially and individually DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. No. 2:02-CV781

Date: Jul 5, 2005

Docket Insider TOO wrote:

Your yawn was pretty inappropriate considering what this case is costing the state taxpayers. If you truly think SFT and DT didn't do MW any harm, you too are a cowardly lion. You'll get what you deserve, and they certainly will get their just desserts. Taxpayers: Happy that even more money is being spent because of a little thing called NEPOTISM

What the f*** is wrong with some of you people?!? The yawn was only expressing the general dismay that cases like this take so long to get resolved, particularly if she is appealing the dismissal of her federal claims and the subsequent remand. I am certainly aware this is the norm, as perhaps my screen name should indicate, but I, like everyone else watching the case would like to fast forward to trial.

Now, as for the #$#!%$#% moron that is the "docket insider too," you should be barred from this board. I never said anything about the merits of the case. How you inferred as much from my post, only your $^#$^&*-self could understand.

I'll refrain from answering questions like that in the future, although I'm sure there are less beligerent posters who would like to know.

Date: Jul 5, 2005

D.I.,

I also misinterpreted your yawn emoticon. Thanks for explaining.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

I think some of you assign to much value or meaning in those emoticons.

Date: Jul 6, 2005

Xs wrote:

I think some of you assign to much value or meaning in those emoticons.

I'm with you on that statement. The same thing applies to the handle one uses. They are sometimes taken too seriously. We are too suspicious

Date: Jul 9, 2005

There was no such remand or dismisal. Kim Chaze got a big laugh out of it. Some people must be mighty upset to start rumors such as that.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

Remander wrote:

There was no such remand or dismisal. Kim Chaze got a big laugh out of it. Some people must be mighty upset to start rumors such as that.

I'm glad to hear your report; is there any way you can confirm it for us? Surely if parts of the case HAD been remanded or dismissed we would have heard more about it from the likes of JoJo. I'm therefore hoping that your report is in fact true.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

I know both MW and Kim Chaze. MW raised her eyebrows over the post, when someone contacted her, and she contacted Kim, as did others. He assured her and others it meant nothing. Neither was overly concerned. I'll contact Emma who will also confirm. The trolls are feeling mighty scared these days. Wonder why. But you have a case number and it's still on the docket.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

Remander wrote:

I know both MW and Kim Chaze. MW raised her eyebrows over the post, when someone contacted her, and she contacted Kim, as did others. He assured her and others it meant nothing. Neither was overly concerned. I'll contact Emma who will also confirm. The trolls are feeling mighty scared these days. Wonder why. But you have a case number and it's still on the docket.

Thanks! MW is a big heroine of mine; I wish her very well.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

Look people, I am no troll. I don't want to give out any more information than necessary, but the case remains open because the plaintiffs are appealing their dismissal of federal claims. Otherwise, it is remanded to state court.

I don't understand why there is some misinformation being spread about the case. All federal claims were dismissed on September 28th of last year by Judge Lemelle. With no federal claims and no diversity of citizenship, it goes to state court from whence it came. As far as I understand, this was not a sealed order, and should be public record.

Maybe she'll win at the Fifth Circuit, but this is VERY RARE. In other words, this doesn't look like the case that will break Shelby's back, though I hope one comes along sooner or later. Preferably while he's still in office, so it gets some real media coverage.

But really, why the misinformation?

Date: Jul 9, 2005

It's still being determined by the Federal Courts, and this case remains quite interesting because it involves nepotism at its most brutal and frank level. At the very least when SFT didn't "grant" her T and P (which had been recommended by the UAC and Provost) - he should have at least informed her prior to Aug. 30, 2002 that he was looking at the documents and given her some type of notice rather than just blankly firing her on the spot. Go to that case number and read it. It will chill you to the bone. It is the case that will break their backs - it's the first one filed, and it was filed by a person who had "exceeds expectations" across the board for 6 years. Their final excuse at the UAC Level was that they(meaning DT, RK, and CRK) was that she was late to meetings and didn't meet with her 110 advisees on a regular basis (with no documentation to prove that lame assertion). When SFT did all of this --- pre-Glamser and Stringer -- it was when he was really feeling his oats. It caused 3 members of the dept. to leave and 2 to quickly retire because it was so creepy. It has not been remanded back to the state level - nonetheless, MW is not going to be outmonied, outsourced, or outsmarted before a jury determines it in court. She's moved on, to a certain extent, but her aim is true, and many former students will be sitting on her side of the court when it goes there.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

All federal claims were dismissed on September 28th of last year by Judge Lemelle.

No, they weren't. That is not true. One part of the claim was dismissed not the other 5 parts, and they are appealing that part, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has not heard it yet.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

WADR wrote:

. Go to that case number and read it. It will chill you to the bone.

How does one do that? what is the web site? Thanks

Date: Jul 9, 2005

I wish I knew. I am trying to contact her and a couple of my attorney friends right now. Someone will tell me how to direct you to it. Chaze's argument is that there has never been a case filed quite like this ever (no prez has ever been this stupid in history in this area since there is a law against nepotism in the state of MS and her constitutional rights were violated, at the very least they should have given her 2 years of pay legally if they didn't want her back on campus, please note again, she heard from the Provost in late Spring congratulating her on tenure and promotion and never heard from the university again in an official capacity until after the Fall Semester (2002) had begun, when SFT wanted to "talk" to her, she and Chaze agreed and then she received the letter on the 30th of Aug. terminating her, she lost her pay and all her benefits with 28 days of warning, and she had no chance to find another job - Chaze predicts it could end up in the Supreme Court if the IHL isn't smart enough to recognize the duplicity of Thames

Date: Jul 9, 2005

WADR wrote:

I wish I knew. I am trying to contact her and a couple of my attorney friends right now. Someone will tell me how to direct you to it. Chaze's argument is that there has never been a case filed quite like this ever (no prez has ever been this stupid in history in this area since there is a law against nepotism in the state of MS and her constitutional rights were violated, at the very least they should have given her 2 years of pay legally if they didn't want her back on campus, please note again, she heard from the Provost in late Spring congratulating her on tenure and promotion and never heard from the university again in an official capacity until after the Fall Semester (2002) had begun, when SFT wanted to "talk" to her, she and Chaze agreed and then she received the letter on the 30th of Aug. terminating her, she lost her pay and all her benefits with 28 days of warning, and she had no chance to find another job - Chaze predicts it could end up in the Supreme Court if the IHL isn't smart enough to recognize the duplicity of Thames

Legalities aside...how about just morally?! Inform someone they're fired basically the day they're supposed to start working (fall semester)? In an occupation where it can easily take a year to find replacement employment?! I don't understand how some of these administrators can sleep at night.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

Outside Observer wrote:

Inform someone they're fired basically the day they're supposed to start working (fall semester)? In an occupation where it can easily take a year to find replacement employment?! I don't understand how some of these administrators can sleep at night.

If USM fully subscribed to AAUP principles this would not happen. Even a tenured faculty member terminated for cause would be given a full year's notice.

Date: Jul 9, 2005

Folks, trust me on this one -- it happened. She was never contacted until someone told her that there was no contract in her box in late July 2002, although everyone else in her dept. had received one in their boxes. When she tried to call all named in the lawsuit - there was no response except for Martray who told her to contact Thames. Thames's first contact with her was almost 2 weeks after the semester started. She was advised by her attorney to not teach classes without a contract of some sort. They tried to use that as cause - didn't work. Then Thames sent her a letter after 2 weeks after classes started, wanting to meet with her and discuss things. Chaze immediately fired back a certified letter saying
Anytime, Anywhere, Anyplace or whatever then on Aug. 30 she was told she was terminated. A single mother with 2 school age children, she went on MS unemployment, got food stamps, and joined the bereft until she landed another job.

Don't beleive MOI? See you in court when it happens. This one is a stunner.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Emma wrote:

Folks, trust me on this one -- it happened. She was never contacted until someone told her that there was no contract in her box in late July 2002, although everyone else in her dept. had received one in their boxes. When she tried to call all named in the lawsuit - there was no response except for Martray who told her to contact Thames. Thames's first contact with her was almost 2 weeks after the semester started. She was advised by her attorney to not teach classes without a contract of some sort. They tried to use that as cause - didn't work. Then Thames sent her a letter after 2 weeks after classes started, wanting to meet with her and discuss things. Chaze immediately fired back a certified letter saying Anytime, Anywhere, Anyplace or whatever then on Aug. 30 she was told she was terminated. A single mother with 2 school age children, she went on MS unemployment, got food stamps, and joined the bereft until she landed another job. Don't beleive MOI? See you in court when it happens. This one is a stunner.

Emma,

Thanks very much for the update. I sure hope this is all decided before Shelby is gone. Please let MW know that we are rooting for her! Any comments on the claim (above) that the case was remanded to state court and is no longer a federal case?

In some ways I hope this DOES go to the supreme court so law students will be reading for years about Shelby and his ways.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Outside Observer wrote:

WADR wrote:
I wish I knew. I am trying to contact her and a couple of my attorney friends right now. Someone will tell me how to direct you to it. Chaze's argument is that there has never been a case filed quite like this ever (no prez has ever been this stupid in history in this area since there is a law against nepotism in the state of MS and her constitutional rights were violated, at the very least they should have given her 2 years of pay legally if they didn't want her back on campus, please note again, she heard from the Provost in late Spring congratulating her on tenure and promotion and never heard from the university again in an official capacity until after the Fall Semester (2002) had begun, when SFT wanted to "talk" to her, she and Chaze agreed and then she received the letter on the 30th of Aug. terminating her, she lost her pay and all her benefits with 28 days of warning, and she had no chance to find another job - Chaze predicts it could end up in the Supreme Court if the IHL isn't smart enough to recognize the duplicity of Thames
Legalities aside...how about just morally?! Inform someone they're fired basically the day they're supposed to start working (fall semester)? In an occupation where it can easily take a year to find replacement employment?! I don't understand how some of these administrators can sleep at night.

No surprise in all this. This is the way the Thames family works. Little Dana didn't like someone--so that someone got it. I continue to believe that part of the vendetta in the G/S affair was rooted in revenge against Stringer for a grade given 30 years ago to one of the Thames boys. There are folks who were in the administration then who believe this and will tell you so.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

I heard that the chief witness against MW will be Carolyn Kazelskis. CK and RK get big Midas money. Does something look wrong here??

Date: Jul 10, 2005

I'm thinking of flying down from Charlottesville to see this case--research for my next book.
Even I couldn't come up with this stuff.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Didn't Edward Humes already write a book called Mississippi Mud? Too bad the title has already been used.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Bookie wrote:

Didn't Edward Humes already write a book called Mississippi Mud? Too bad the title has already been used.

is taken too ( http://www.pbase.com/slug/moulin_mud ).

Date: Jul 10, 2005

Chaze is quite anxious to get his court time with CRK. Although he's a fairly good tennis player, that's not the court that has the Thames crew concerned.

Date: Jul 10, 2005

When SFT did his misdeeds with her is was pre-Presidency and immediately after his Prez was confirmed. He was at his worst as far as acting out. He's been cautioned now from being so bone-headed, but what he did that summer in 2002 to MW can not be wiped away. MW's and DT's past is part of a perfect Grisham novel. Given the Thames's homage to themselves, some of us can't believe that they'd want this much dismal publicity. No matter - this is one of the most unbelievable stories in misacademia ever. I've heard that MW has already been contacted by agents concerning where she wants the story to go (print, multimedia) as soon as it is resolved. Stay tuned. This one isn't going away. God bless everyone who is fighting out the current weather storm.